President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at Texas A&M VIDEO PODCAST

President George W. Bush smiles with his parents, former President George H.W. Bush, left, and former first lady Barbara Bush following his commencement address at Texas A&M University's winter convocation Friday, Dec. 12, 2008, in College Station, Texas. White House photo by Eric Draper.

President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at Texas A&M FULL STREAMING VIDEO Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 10:36 A.M. CST. PODCAST OF THIS ARTICLE THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Howdy! AUDIENCE: Howdy!

THE PRESIDENT: I am thrilled to be back in Aggieland. (Applause.) And it's always an honor to be introduced by the President of the United States -- especially when he's your Dad. And how about Mom? Mom, I've been meaning to say this publicly for a long time -- thanks, thanks for the gray hair. (Laughter.)

I congratulate the graduates of the Fighting Texas Aggie Classes of 2008 -- (applause) -- class of 2007 -- (applause) -- the class of 2006 -- I'd better stop. (Laughter.) Let's just say that I hope there's no one left from when I spoke to the commencement in 1998. (Laughter.) If so, I hope you're walking out of here with a Ph.D. (Laughter.)

I am grateful to the faculty and staff of Texas A&M for their devotion to learning and their example of scholarship. I appreciate your outstanding President, Dr. Elsa Murano. And I am glad to be with -- there you go. (Applause.) And I am glad to travel from Washington today with three fine Aggies representing Texas in the United States Congress -- Congressmen Chet Edwards, Joe Barton, and Jeb Hensarling. (Applause.)

I am pleased to see so many of your families and loved ones here today. While you bled maroon, they bled a lot of green. (Laughter.) So please join me in thanking all those whose support made it possible for you to reach this proud day. (Applause.)

There is one person who wishes he could be here today -- and that's your former President, and America's Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates. (Applause.) You know, he's got an excused absence. It's not like he's over at the Dixie Chicken. (Laughter.) He's traveling to the Middle East, consulting with our generals, and showing his support for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

When I asked Bob to be the Secretary of Defense, it was clear how much he loved Texas A&M. After all, he refused to come to Washington until after he attended the winter commencement. And I was even more impressed when he insisted on standing during the Cabinet meetings -- (laughter) -- claiming he was the "12th Man." (Laughter.) One day, he explained it all. He said: "Mr. President, I'm red ass." (Applause.)

I'll say this for A&M -- you've got some mighty fine traditions. (Applause.) Back in my day, I think I would have enjoyed dunking my ring. (Applause.) I would have loved to have taken Laura to "midnight yell." (Applause.) I especially like the traditions around Reveille. Anytime she barks during a class lecture, everyone in the room is dismissed. (Applause.) I wish she had been there for some of those press conferences. (Laughter and applause.)

This campus is home to solemn rituals that demonstrate the strength of your bonds. In playing of Silver Taps to honor fallen classmates, in the reunion of students and alumni to read the roll call at Muster, and in wearing of your timeless rings, you affirm a powerful truth: Once an Aggie, always an Aggie. (Applause.)

Traditions like these are central to the A&M experience. And so is academic excellence, and all of you will benefit from your rigorous courses of study. I suspect you'll also find that some of your most important learning took place outside the classroom -- in the friendships you formed, perspective you gained, and the things you discovered about yourselves. When you leave this campus, you will be well prepared for any endeavor you choose. To those of you who have jobs lined up, I -- congratulations. To those not exactly sure what comes next -- I know how you feel. (Laughter and applause.)

As our days in the White House wind down, we're going through a series of "lasts." I pardoned my last Thanksgiving turkey. Laura decorated for her last Christmas in the White House. And Barney bit his last reporter. (Laughter.) Or at least that's what we hope. (Laughter.)

This is also my last commencement address as President. (Applause.) And it is fitting that it takes place here in Texas, where I have been so blessed over the years. I was raised here by wonderful parents, surrounded by brothers and sisters whose love still sustains me. And Texas is where I went to a backyard barbeque and met a beautiful teacher named Laura Welch. Texas is where our girls were born and our lifelong friends live. And next month, when our time in Washington is done, Texas is where we're coming home. (Applause.)

These days, I'm asked a lot about my time as President. Some days have been happy, some days not so happy -- every day joyous. It's been a tremendous privilege. I have traveled across our nation, and to 74 countries around the world. I have slept in Buckingham Palace; I have feasted in the desert of Abu Dhabi; I've watched the sunrise in Jerusalem. I have spoken to campaign rallies in packed stadiums, and to hundreds of thousands in Romania's Revolution Square. I've taken Marine One into America's biggest cities, and visited many of our smallest towns. Through it all, nothing has inspired me more than the character of the American people -- the acts of courage and service that sustain our free society, and make this the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)

Courage and service are cherished here at A&M, and they are values that I hope will guide you for the years to come. So this morning, I thought I would share a few of the most powerful examples of courage and service that I have witnessed over the past eight years.

No act of courage or service is more impressive than volunteering for the United States military. Eight years ago, a brave 17-year-old named Christian Bagge made that noble choice when he stepped forward to join the Oregon National Guard. In 2005, Christian's unit was on patrol in Iraq when his Humvee hit a roadside bomb. He lost both his legs, and he thought he would lose his life. But with determination and superb medical care, this good man survived.

I met him at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. He told me he used to be a runner and he planned to run again. I was impressed by his courage, but it was hard to imagine a man with such severe injuries ever being able to run. I said to him offhandedly, you know, when you're ready to run just call me, I'll be glad to run with you -- and moved on.

Well, then one day, a phone call came to the Oval Office. It was Christian. He said, "I'm ready to take you up on your offer, Mr. President." Just five months after I'd seen him in the hospital, he showed up at the White House with legs made of carbon fiber -- and a spirit stronger than steel. Together, we took a lap around the South Lawn. I'll admit, he left his Commander-In-Chief in the dust. (Laughter.) And he left me with great admiration for his unshakable determination, his upbeat spirit, and his inspiring example for all Americans. (Applause.)

People like Christian show the true strength of our military -- and so do the families who support them. Last year in Reno, Nevada, I met a orthopedic surgeon named Bill Krissoff. His son Nathan, a Marine, had given his life in Iraq. Dr. Krissoff told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in Nathan's honor. I looked at this remarkable man, I said: "How old are you?" He said he was 60 years old. He needed a special waiver to qualify for the Navy. I was thinking I'm 61, so he didn't sound all that old. (Laughter.) I asked his wife what she thought of the whole thing, and she said she supported his decision. So I went back to Washington -- and surprisingly enough, a few days later the waiver came through.

Since then, Dr. Krissoff has undergone extensive training in battlefield medicine. And soon he will deploy to Iraq, where he'll help save the wounded, uphold the legacy of his fallen son, and inspire the United States of America. (Applause.)

Petty Officer Greg Guillory is also in the Navy. But that is not the only way he serves. Greg lost his mother in a car accident at a young age, and his stepmother suffered from a serious drug addiction. Greg earned a four-year scholarship to play college football -- he was a high school player here in the state of Texas. But he turned down that scholarship so he could stay home to help his family confront its problems. Eventually, he decided to join the Navy, where he found a strong and supportive environment.

While stationed in San Diego, Greg met his wife Shonda, who had also endured a painful childhood. Together, they resolved to help children trapped in difficult circumstances, and made the selfless and compassionate decision to become foster parents. They spent a year caring for a 17-year-old who been abused. Then they took in a 14-year-old who had been beaten, then a baby born with drugs in her system, and then a three-year-old whose mother was in jail. Today they are caring for two children, a brother and sister, as well as the baby girl Shonda delivered last month.

And all the while, Greg has been carrying out his duties in uniform. He is stationed at Camp David, Maryland -- and this generous man who has given so much to others feels so grateful himself. During a moving testimony at the Camp David chapel that I was fortunate enough to witness this past Thanksgiving, he said: "I am thankful that God continues to bless me so I can be a blessing for children in need."

America is blessed to have citizens like Greg and Shonda, whose hearts are big enough to share the greatest gift of all -- the gift of love. (Applause.)

Kendrick Kennedy shared that gift, too, after Hurricane Katrina struck his hometown of Biloxi, Mississippi. Even though his own house had been damaged, Kendrick put others first -- helping family members find shelter, and cleaning up debris in neighbors' yards. There's another piece of the story: Kendrick is blind. A few years before the storm, he lost his sight -- and his job. But he refused to let that hold him back. He enrolled at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College. I met him there when I spoke at his commencement. He went on to the University of Southern Mississippi, where he became the first blind student to graduate summa cum laude. Now he's in law school in Ole Miss. And this good man has set a high goal -- to serve our country as a justice on the Supreme Court. (Applause.)

Other Americans show courage by summoning the hidden strength to overcome their weaknesses. Four years ago, I met Letitia Chavez-Paulette. She had been addicted to drugs; she served time for her mistakes. While in prison, she joined a faith-based program called Celebrate Recovery, and to help turn her life around. When she was released, Letitia was determined to support other women returning to society. So she started a transitional home called "A Peaceful Habitation" -- a name taken from the Book of Isaiah. Here's what Letitia said: "God's grace has kept me going. His love has kept me strong. And my faith is a gift that is helping me help others."

In these stories, we see the courage and service that defined America at its best. And that same spirit has long defined Texas A&M. It's the spirit of General Earl Rudder, who helped lead the D-Day invasion and served more than a decade as A&M's president. It is the spirit of the Corps of Cadet, which includes nearly 1,800 Aggies. It is the spirit of your ROTC program, which routinely commissions more officers than any school outside the service academies. It's the spirit of the 21 Aggies who've given their lives to keep America safe since September the 11th, 2001 -- a sacrifice that will be honored forever by your "Freedom from Terrorism" memorial.

That same spirit is visible on this campus in many ways beyond the military. A&M is home to "The Big Event" -- the largest student-run community service project in the nation. After Hurricane Ike hit the Texas coast, you welcomed more than 1,600 "Sea Aggies" from A&M's Galveston campus to College Station. And in countless other acts of volunteerism and charity, you have made Texas A&M's name synonymous with service.

On your last day as A&M students, my call to you is to continue this spirit long after you leave the campus. There are so many needs to be met, and so many ways you can help -- from mentoring a child to becoming a teacher, to volunteering to feed the hungry or heal the sick overseas. If you hear the call to service in the military or government, answer it. If you enter the private sector, be proud of contributing to our prosperity -- and give back to your communities. Wherever life leads you, pursue the path of service -- and you will find fulfillment beyond measure.

As you embark on this journey, let me leave you with a few last pieces of advice. First, listen to your mother. (Laughter and applause.) As you can see, Mom is out of the hospital and everything is back to normal. After all, she's still telling me what to do. (Laughter.)

Second, develop a set of principles to live by -- convictions and ideals to guide your course. There will be times when people tell you a different way is more accepted or popular. Remember that popularity is as fleeting as the Texas wind. Character and conscience are as sturdy as the oaks on this campus. If you go home at night, look in the mirror and be satisfied that you have done what is right, you will pass the only test that matters. (Applause.)

And finally, be on the lookout for role models -- people whose conduct you admire and whose paths you can follow. With that in mind, I have one last example of courage and service. It's a story of a young man who left comfort behind to answer his nation's call, became the youngest pilot in the Navy, and nearly gave his life in World War II. When he came back home, he devoted his career to public service, and proved that success in politics can be accomplished with decency and grace. He reached the pinnacle in government, but he defines his life by other roles -- a father who gave unconditional love, a grandfather devoted to his grandchildren, and a beloved husband of the sweetheart he married a lifetime ago. Some of you will leave A&M with a degree that carries this good man's name -- George Bush. I have been blessed and honored to have carried it for 62 years. (Applause.)

I want to thank you. I want to thank you for the opportunity to share this special day with you. I congratulate you. When I leave office next month, I will depart confident in the future of our country, because I have faith in each of you. I will depart uplifted by the many acts of courage and service that I have witnessed these past eight years. I will depart grateful for the outpouring of support and prayers that have strengthened Laura and me. And I will depart ready to come home to the people I have missed and the place I love -- the state of Texas. (Applause.)

And so, after all this, there is only one thing left to say: Gig'em Aggies! (Applause.) Congratulations, and may God bless you. (Applause.)

END 10:29 A.M. CST

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary December 12, 2008

U.S. Department of State Preventing Future Terrorist Attacks in Pakistan VIDEO

Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC December 11, 2008

MR. MCCORMACK:
Good morning, everybody. Sorry for being a little bit late. I don’t have anything to start with. We’ll get right to your questions. Sure.

QUESTION: Can you explain exactly what was – what this document means?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t read it. Sorry.

QUESTION: This would be the Chairman’s statement of the Six-Party Talks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, all right. Sure, let me --

QUESTION: Because it doesn't really --

MR. MCCORMACK: It doesn't address the issue at hand. Right. Let me try to – I’m prepared to try to do that. I’ll let you be the judge as to how precise my explanation is.

Chris is on his way back. And I guess the best way to put this is that, you know, from our point of view, and I think this is a shared point of view certainly among the five parties, North Korea perhaps being the exception, but the objective of this Six-Party round was to formalize the understandings that the U.S. and North Korea had previously reached verification, just to “Six-Party-ize” this so everybody – so everybody could initial it, everybody could put all of these understandings down on paper.

Just to rewind the tape a little bit, in terms – with our – in our negotiations with the North Koreans, we had agreed upon many things on pieces – on a piece of paper that both sides could initial, if you will. Some of the understandings that we reached were part of an oral understanding that we took very precise and careful notes on. In subsequent conversations with other members of the Six-Party Talks, they affirmed that this was their understanding of our conversation with the North Koreans based on their separate interactions with the North Koreans.

So the whole – the idea was to put all of this on a piece of paper so that everybody could understand what was – what had been agreed to in the verification discussions. And part of this – two important points in this were that the reference to scientific – the scientific procedures meant sampling. I know that that is something that there’s been a lot of discussion about. And it also covered not just plutonium, but HEU and proliferation activities. So the scope of the agreement covered all three of those areas, and that one of the agreed upon verification members – one of the agreed upon verification measures was sampling.

So that’s to kind of bring you up to the present date. The draft – and this is an interesting point. The draft that North Korea said it could not sign onto at this round of the Six-Party Talks was a Chinese draft. We had signed onto the draft, so what – North Korea wasn’t – you know, wasn’t rejecting – rejecting is not the right word – didn’t want to sign onto an American draft. This was a Chinese draft. And I think it’s safe to say that all the other members of the Six-Party Talks supported this draft. So in that sense, North Korea, on this question, is isolated.

And where we stand now is that North Korea said it could not, at that meeting, accept the draft, it could not initial the draft. All the parties said okay, let’s – let’s adjourn the meeting, go back to capitals, think about it, and we’ll keep working this process. But this is, I think, an indication – it’s a public indication of how central to this process we view verification. Verification is absolutely essential to this process. Quite frankly, it is not going to be able to move forward without agreement on a verification protocol. So we will – in terms of our obligations, I don’t see those moving forward until we have an agreement on this verification protocol.

QUESTION: So I’m --

MR. MCCORMACK: So is that precise enough?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, maybe. But why do you make such a big deal out of the fact that it was a Chinese draft and not – I mean, basically, didn’t the Chinese – didn’t the Chinese draft incorporate or include all of the things that you had a – that you just got verbal understandings with?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: So what difference does it make whether it’s a --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, because very often – very often, this gets played out in public and the media as a U.S.-North Korea issue. And I make the point only to say that this is not a U.S.-North Korea issue; this is a North Korea-all the rest of the members of the Six-Party Talks issue. And in fact, this was a Chinese draft that --

QUESTION: Is it fair to say, though, then that the – or that the initial understandings that Chris thought he had with the North Koreans was a U.S.-North Korean?

MR. MCCORMACK: On behalf – no, but we were negotiating on behalf of the other parties. It was – these were understandings that we arrived at --

QUESTION: It doesn't appear that it worked very well if you --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think it worked well for five of the six parties, and we’ll see whether or not it works for the last of the six parties. Now --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: It is, admittedly, but – admittedly. But as I said, this process is not going to move forward beyond this point without a verification protocol being agreed upon.

QUESTION: Sean, did you jump the gun then, taking them off the state sponsors --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, and I knew that this was going to come up.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it’s – because that was – that was an action, again, as I said yesterday, that was based on the law and the facts. That’s an irreducible condition. You can’t get around that. They met the criteria.

As I said, this is a process that is action-for-action, and the North Koreans had made considerable progress on disablement and they had – and they also agreed with us on a verification protocol. So – and again, I don’t want to go back to tracing – you know, connecting each action for each action going back to the beginning of this process, but fair to say, that’s where we were up until this meeting. And going forward, the United States is – and I think it’s to say perhaps others – not going to move forward with further obligations absent a verification protocol.

QUESTION: Are you going to rethink your policy toward North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Again, we’ll see, you know, the – the place where we find ourselves now is that this meeting has been adjourned. It did not achieve the goal of an agreed among the six verification protocol. We have agreement among five. We’ll see on the sixth. They are going to back to their capitals. They are going to think about it, consider the proposition. And we’ll see – we’ll see what that yields.

All of that said, this – you know, this mechanism will still be, in that intervening time – and I can’t tell you how long that intervening time will be – will remain a vital consultative coordination mechanism for the United States as well as the other four parties.

QUESTION: So is the negotiation over for the --

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: -- Bush Administration?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I – well, in terms of further action in the Six-Party mechanism, we’ll see what the North Korean response is going to be. And I want to emphasize that the idea here is that there will continue to be work, there will continue to be action, in terms of consultation. And certainly, we, as well as others – the Chinese, I would expect – will encourage North Korea to accept the common understanding of the other five and to move this process forward.

QUESTION: Do you think it was a mistake to come to an oral understanding on this issue, you know, bilaterally with the U.S. and North Korea?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, because we got a commitment. And we have very, very precise notes about those commitments, and we committed those to paper and also in the form of a memorandum, a memorandum for the record, if you will. So we know what was committed to during those discussions. And it was very, very useful to be able to bring that written record. And again, others have independently confirmed the substance of those conversations between the United States and North Korea. So it was very useful to have that down on paper. Now, we’ll see if North Korea – we’ll see if North Korea is willing to take the next step and to formalize that among the six.

QUESTION: But it did give North Korea a way out. I mean, if it wasn’t in writing and it was just an oral understanding, it did give them a way to sort of not agree to this.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, the process isn’t moving forward either way. So we have actually advanced the ball where they have this – they have reached an understanding with us based on behalf of the other parties. We will see if they will take that next step now to formalize it on paper among the six.

QUESTION: So your failure to get them to agree in this is actually progress; is that what you’re saying?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we did get them to agree.

QUESTION: But they haven’t.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again – and again --

QUESTION: When you say that others have independently verified, how is that possible when they --

MR. MCCORMACK: In conversations with the North Koreans. Look, there is nothing easy --

QUESTION: So the North Koreans have made these verbal commitments to other members of the Six Parties?

MR. MCCORMACK: There was an understanding that was affirmed verbally with the Chinese that this was the understanding. And again, this is a Chinese draft of the verification – verification protocols, and we’ll see if this process move forward. And you know, we have been rock solid on the issue of verification, saying this is central to this process and it will not move forward without a verification protocol. And I’ll add, just again editorially, that this is not – in this verification protocol, this is not anything extraordinary. This is common practice in these kinds of agreement.

Now, perhaps it is not common practice with North Korea. We understand that – we understand the parties – the party with whom we are negotiating. We’ll see if they’ll take this next step. If not, then this process, at this point, won’t move forward. It will still remain vital in terms of a mechanism to achieve denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and we still believe that we can make progress in the remaining time we have in this Administration. We’ll see, though. That will be up to North Korea.

QUESTION: Okay. There’s no date set for the next meeting at the envoys level --

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct.

QUESTION: -- but there is a date set for this working group on the (inaudible) the Northeast Asia Security Initiative, and that date is set for February in Moscow. Are you confident that the next administration – how can you commit the next administration to this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, they will make their own decisions. We have always said that we will act in what we believe to be the best interests of the United States in foreign policy. But very clearly, you know, each administration is going to have – the new administration is going to have to make its own decisions about which meetings it attends and doesn't attend based on its policy orientation. I mean, for example, there are NATO meetings scheduled which we say, yes, we’re sure the next administration will be there, but again, I guess technically --

QUESTION: That’s not --

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, technically --

QUESTION: But NATO is not an initiative of --

MR. MCCORMACK: I know. I exaggerate to make a point, Matt. The – you know, everybody knows they’re going to show up. But again, they’re going to have to make their own decisions about --

QUESTION: Well, yeah. But the incoming administration, or at least during the campaign, and its officials were quite unhappy with the way that the Bush Administration dealt with North Korea. Is there – and do you have any indication from them that they’re prepared – that they’re willing to carry on and that they’ll go ahead and --

MR. MCCORMACK: I will let them speak for themselves.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you feel sort of double-crossed by the North Koreans? I mean, they promised you one thing early and now they’re not committing themselves? I mean, do you feel as if they’re just dumping you and hoping for the next – a better deal with the next administration?

MR. MCCORMACK: Do we feel jilted?

QUESTION: Do you feel jilted? Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. Look, we understand with whom we are negotiating. I don’t think that there are any illusions about that. And I don’t think that there has been anything easy about this process, but it has yielded results through difficult and less difficult times. And we’ll see. This is one of those times where we’ll see if the process moves forward. We’ve had – we’ve gone through a number of these different way points, and to date it has moved forward, albeit not at the pace that we or others would have hoped. Nonetheless, it has moved forward. And evidence of that is the state of the disablement of Yongbyon, something that has never before been achieved – not even close – as well as the kinds of declarations that the North Koreans have made. Now, we’ve said we don’t take those on face value, they have to be verified, which brings us to the point where we are right now. And we’ll see if we can get to the point of an agreed upon “Six-Party-ized” verification protocol.

QUESTION: What about those who’ve been very critical of you, like John Bolton, for example? I mean, he feels like you gave them the keys to the candy store and just said, you know, go in and take whatever you like.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, the First Amendment is alive and well. You know, freedom of speech in this country – and he was entitled to his opinion. We don’t agree with him. We think that’s wrong. We think that we have taken a sober-minded approach to this that is in the best interest of America’s national security and foreign policy. Some will disagree with that, and we’ll see what the process yields. But I – you know, you’ve heard, you know, me, you’ve heard the Secretary, you’ve heard the President of the United States talk about the fact that we believe that this is the right policy. And we have been very careful in implementing the policy. It has been action-for-action. And you see now we have gotten to the point where we need to see action from North Korea; otherwise, the process will not move forward.

QUESTION: But you took them off the list because you had the promise, well, things are moving along, but you also had the promise that they were going to meet their obligations, and they’ve not met them. So are you going to just (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: And the process --

QUESTION: I know you said earlier that you wouldn't, but could you slap them back on the list?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, the law dictates how you get on the list; it dictates how you get off the list. If they meet the criteria for getting back on the list, one supposes they could be put back on the list. But I’m not aware that there is any indication that they have met the criteria.

QUESTION: But are you looking at that?

MR. MCCORMACK: You look at it always with every country around the – I guess, supposedly, every country around the world, technically speaking. But I’m not trying to indicate – indicate to you any particular action on our point.

QUESTION: What happens to the oil shipments? Will those be suspended?

MR. MCCORMACK: The what? (Inaudible.) Well, we – the United States – and I – as I said, I suspect others, have obligations, and this is an action-for-action negotiation. We have yet to see action on the verification protocol from North Korea. So I suspect that that would be – anything that we might do would be pending North Korea taking the steps that they have obliged themselves to make.

QUESTION: So they’re suspended for now?

QUESTION: Who’s next?

MR. MCCORMACK: I would suspect – I – you – I don’t think you’re going to see much action from other parties until North Korea acts.

QUESTION: Who is next to deliver fuel to them?

MR. MCCORMACK: I’ll check for you. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Would you recommend that that party not go ahead and deliver fuel?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I think the ball is in North Korea’s court in terms of what needs to be done next.

QUESTION: Just one more. They met for four days.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The main thing that you – that everyone – or that this meeting – that these meetings were supposed to produce was this verification protocol.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And unless I have a bad copy of this statement, the word “verification” appears once.

MR. MCCORMACK: Uh-huh. Are you saying that (inaudible)?

QUESTION: And it’s – and it says – verification comes out as part of the agenda items, and it’s never mentioned again.

MR. MCCORMACK: Are you saying, Matt, that a multilateral diplomatic statement is opaque?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Color me shocked. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: This seems --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Look, I think I’ve given a pretty clear summation.

QUESTION: All right. This is the second time in the -- a couple of months where things that were oral agreements in international affairs have floundered, have fallen apart, the first being the Russia-Georgia ceasefire where everything was allegedly based on the notes that the French took when in their meeting, and now you have this debacle.

MR. MCCORMACK: Debacle?

QUESTION: Yes. Is there any more given – any thought to the idea that maybe, you know, one side’s notes are really not the best way to, you know, approach – to solve problems, that you really need to get things on writing – in writing first?

MR. MCCORMACK: Which is what we were doing in Beijing.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just one more. You have five weeks, I think -- left till January 20th. Do you expect any (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Forty days.

QUESTION: Oh, is it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Forty days.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: But who’s counting?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. But who’s counting? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Looking at the calendar. Do you expect any greater U.S. push with North Korea bilaterally to try to bring them around one more time? Is that worth it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I – I suspect that, you know, all the members of the – albeit the five members – will continue to work with North Korea, consult with North Korea. But the protocol is the protocol, and we would urge them to see it as in their interest to agree to it.

QUESTION: Could you put it in context? Is that a serious breakdown in this long process of talks? I don’t think you agreed with Matt’s description, but how would you characterize the --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: You don’t --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I wouldn’t agree with that characterization. You know, I don’t know. I can’t put a bumper sticker on it. It’s not going to move forward until they agree to the verification protocol.

Anything else on North Korea? All right, let’s --

QUESTION: Okay. So the UN banning the Jamaat ul-Dawa yesterday evening, can you get a reaction to that, one? And two --

MR. MCCORMACK: Is this the 1267 committee?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: And does the U.S. plan to do something similar for the – do you have (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, clearly, we support the action of the committee. In terms of the United States, you know, we don’t – we don’t foreshadow any particular move that we might take. You know, our people who have responsibility for looking at ways to ensure that terrorist groups can’t – don’t have access to the kind of funding or resources that they need to operate, that’s an ongoing 24/7 operation. And we make announcements post facto, and the reason for that is you don’t want to have asset flight. That applies to all of those kinds of operations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Indian Foreign Minister this – has just recently said that Pakistan is not doing enough, or more needs to be done. Is that also what the U.S. believes?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we think that Pakistan has taken some important steps. As I said yesterday, it’s a day-by-day kind of thing. This is – and not just Pakistan; countries around the world where there’s an issue with violent extremists or terrorists. Our emphasis has been, in terms of the steps Pakistan has already taken, let’s make sure that everything is done to prevent any future terrorist attacks. And ultimately, people responsible have to be brought to justice, and again – but we’ll continue to work with both parties on this.

QUESTION: Just about an hour ago, Pakistan said that following the UN ban, it will be banning the Jamaat ul-Dawa. According to U.S. intelligence, is that something you believe will happen? After the parliament attack, it said it would ban the Lashkar e-Tayyiba, and that seemed to have just petered out with time.

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll – again, we’ll let the Pakistani Government speak to their own actions. But certainly, you know, I believe that – I have seen news reports that they have made that announcement, and certainly, that would be a positive step.

Yeah, Sue.

QUESTION: The Secretary’s been quite outspoken about President Mugabe, and – well, what are you planning next week at the UN in terms of trying to take action against Mugabe and to force him out?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. We’ll put out a media note for you either today or tomorrow just formally announcing – she’ll be up at the UN for a variety of different activities, and we’ll try to describe those in more detail either Friday or Monday for you. I expect Zimbabwe will be a point of discussion. Certainly, she’ll be seeing many of her colleagues on the Security Council as well as many of her counterparts who will be coming to New York as well to address a variety of different issues, whether that’s piracy or whether that’s Zimbabwe.

We have made quite clear where we stand, and we think it is time for all countries who have what I refer to as unused leverage to use that leverage. The time has come for Robert Mugabe to go. His continuance in that position is a hindrance to Zimbabwe being able to get itself – pull itself out of this deep crisis in which it finds itself, which is just sad to watch. And the countries in the region have a special responsibility in that regard. There is a humanitarian crisis that is only deepening, and we’re trying to respond to that. And I think in a couple of minutes, you will – well, once we’re done here, our Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Ambassador McGee, will be out here along with USAID Administrator Fore to give you a little sense for not only the situation on the ground, but how the United States is responding to it.

The last count I had -- and perhaps Administrator Fore has an update for you -- just a couple days ago, we had 14,000 cases of cholera in Zimbabwe with the prediction that that was – that number was going to -- only going to grow.

QUESTION: You say that the countries in the region have a special responsibility.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: That would be particularly South Africa. So what are you doing --

MR. MCCORMACK: As well as others, as well as others. Namibia --

QUESTION: Yeah, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia. So --

MR. MCCORMACK: Namibia, Angola.

QUESTION: So what – what are you doing specifically to try and get those countries to do something? Is Jendayi Frazer, for example, doing a trip around the region? Is she calling meetings? I mean, what are you (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: She’s been working --

QUESTION: You can’t keep saying do something and --

MR. MCCORMACK: She – I know – she’s been working the phones. I know that the Brits, as well as others, have been working the phones on this issue. And you know, I can’t rule out the Secretary herself won’t be making some phone calls as well. We’ll try to keep you up to date on that.

QUESTION: Who has she called so far? Has she called a few (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nobody, thus far. We’ll keep you up to date.

Anything else? Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the Somali pirates, any update on a draft resolution that would allow the international forces to go after pirates on the mainland?

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing for you on that. Again, we’re – you know, we addressed the issue, and I guess the framework issue at sea in passing – the rollover of 1816, which was – authorizes the use of all necessary means at sea. But if you – you have to address that at sea, you also have to address the sort of the root at – try to address some of the root issues on land. And we’re talking to colleagues up in the Security Council about how to do that, what the best way to do that is.

QUESTION: It would be by plane? It will be striking, bombing, or it will be –

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re still working on the politics of this.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re still working on the politics of this.

Nina, did you have a question? You were --

QUESTION: One quickly about Pakistan. These guys are now under house arrest. Is there any pressure from the U.S. about them being taken out of house arrest, being sent to India? Anything like that going --

MR. MCCORMACK: We haven’t made any – any specific prescriptions. We’ve talked in general terms and in terms of principle about those responsible being held to account and facing justice. The Pakistani Government has demonstrated – it has acted on what we think are good instincts in terms of going after some of these individuals and extremist groups, and we’ll see what the next steps are. Ultimately, they’re going to have – I mean, they’re going to be the decision makers on this, but we can certainly make clear our views as well as others who can make clear their views.

QUESTION: But you’re not concerned that they might linger under indefinite house arrest?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, right now, just as a matter of principle, our – our concern is that any individuals not be able to be – be able to participate in any planning of violent acts, and that inasmuch as one possibly can, learn information that would help prevent future attacks.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So Pakistan believes that extraditing them to India is not an option. What would you say the other options are, then?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I’m not going to offer any particular options. I think I’ve outlined in principle how we see things.

QUESTION: All right. Can I just go back to Somalia for a second?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So there is or there is not a draft? You have or you have not written up a draft that calls for fighting the pirates on land?

MR. MCCORMACK: Honestly, Matt, I don’t know what state this effort is in. I’m sure words have been put to paper in trying to get at, you know, how do you get at the problem on land. And this gets wrapped up, as well, as an issue that we have been talking about for quite some time, about an international force that could assume the responsibilities that the Ethiopian forces in Somalia now have taken on in terms of trying to provide some greater security and stability there. So all of these questions at the moment are wrapped up in discussions in New York. I’ll try to find out for you exactly what state those discussions are in, whether or not they’ve reached a state of --

QUESTION: The Secretary General has put forward a suggestion to replace the current force with a multilateral force that is not a blue-helmeted UN force, that they would take over in the interim, that it would then – that would work towards – and work while peace talks were going on between the Islamists and the TFG.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And then, once a ceasefire was signed, that would be replaced by a UN force. Is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me --

QUESTION: -- something the U.S. supports, or are you looking at – are you wanting to move to a UN force sooner than that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Let me – I know that we’ve been working on trying to get an international force deployed urgently, and there have been a number of different options. Let me check for you, Matt, to see what we think about that specific proposal. I confess that I just don’t have the details.

Okay? All right.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 11:02 a.m.)

DPB#209

Released on December 11, 2008